ingrammicro_get_product_detail_by_reference

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the cross-parameter constraint that exactly one of the three identifiers must be supplied, which is genuine behavioral disclosure not present in the schema. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-format detail is not a gap. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, followed by the routing condition and the invocation constraint. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter lookup with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential decisions: what it does, when to use it, and the exactly-one parameter rule. The only minor gap is not naming the alternative tool explicitly and not stating failure behavior when the constraint is violated, but the tool remains correctly callable from the given information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents each parameter individually. The description adds the exactly-one-of-three mutual-exclusivity rule, which the individual parameter descriptions do not convey — meaningful cross-parameter semantics above the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Get catalog detail') and precisely scopes the lookup to reference identifiers (vendor part number, plan id/name). The phrase 'for when you don't have Ingram's own part number' distinguishes this tool from the sibling ingrammicro_get_product_detail, which is keyed by Ingram's part number, and it also separates it from search_products.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'for when you don't have Ingram's own part number' gives an explicit trigger condition that routes the agent to this tool rather than the Ingram-part-number alternative. The 'Exactly one of...' sentence is a hard operational constraint for correct invocation. It does not name the alternative sibling explicitly or say when to prefer plan_id over plan_name, but the context is sufficiently clear for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.